MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court (SC) has reaffirmed that clients should not be unfairly penalized for their lawyer’s mistakes, especially when it could deprive them of justice.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted a group of laborers additional time to file their pleading after their lawyer failed to submit it within the required period.

The laborers had filed an illegal dismissal case against their employer. However, both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed their complaint. Seeking recourse, they elevated their case to the Court of Appeals (CA), where they had until December 10, 2022, to file a petition for certiorari.

Despite prior agreements and payment, their lawyer failed to prepare the petition. Left without legal representation, the laborers sought a 30-day extension, or until January 10, 2023, to secure new counsel and file their case.

However, the CA denied their request, ruling that they had not made sufficient efforts to find a new lawyer. It subsequently dismissed their petition, which they had managed to file on January 10, 2023, through new legal representation.

Challenging the ruling, the laborers appealed to the SC, which ruled in their favor.

The SC emphasized that while the 60-day deadline for filing a petition for certiorari is generally mandatory, courts may grant extensions under valid circumstances.

“Indeed, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure and prevent a miscarriage of justice,” the ruling stated.

The Court also noted that while clients are typically bound by their lawyer’s actions, exceptions exist, particularly when legal negligence results in due process violations or the loss of a client’s liberty or property.

In this case, the SC recognized that the laborers—minimum-wage workers with limited access to legal resources—had been abandoned by their lawyer. Given their situation, the Court held that they could not be expected to secure new representation immediately.

“Indubitably, the adage that ‘those who have less in life should have more in law’ is not an empty platitude, especially when there is a grave possibility that the less privileged, having relied in good faith on the assurances of a lawyer, were abruptly abandoned and were deprived of their right to due process,” the SC said.

The High Court ordered the CA to hear the case on its merits and directed the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the lawyer’s actions for possible administrative liability.